An open letter to Senator Al Franken

Dear Senator Franken,

I think that you are sincere in the apologies you have offered.  I also think that you cannot try to distinguish what you did before you became a Senator versus what you are accused of doing after you were elected.  You've owned what happened, you've apologized and now you do need to get to work to rebuild the trust you keep saying you want to rebuild.

Here is one way you can work toward that goal.  Introduce legislation that removes the veil of secrecy and Byzantine process from the process of employees of Congress making complaints regarding sexual harassment.  Require that any settlements involving members of Congress and/or their staffs do NOT contain any nondisclosure agreements in terms of protecting the accused.  If the victim wishes anonymity in a settlement, that should be their prerogative.

Then go one step further.  Introduce legislation that would require that only the victims of sexual harassment can ask for a nondisclosure agreement as part of a settlement.  In any industry.  In any situation.

Then you advocate for this issue.  Force the Republicans who will oppose it to do so in the light of day.  Show that they, like the LiarInChief, have no interest in protecting the American people who are not part of the 1%.

Best regards,

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent - Capitol Hill edition - Part 2

Angela Rye is a CNN commentator, attorney and former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus.  She was on CNN this morning in a discussion regarding the allegations made against Senator Al Franken (D-MN) and Congressman John Conyers (D-MI).  Before we get to her comments, let's review the allegations against each.

Al Franken is accused of forcing his tongue into the mouth of Leeann Tweeden at a USO show rehearsal, and we've all seen the photo of him groping or simulating the groping of her breasts as she slept on a plane.  Three other women have accused him of groping their buttocks between 2007 and 2010.

As to John Conyers, let's let an excerpt from the Buzzfeed story on the subject tell the story:

"Michigan Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat and the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with a former employee who alleged she was fired because she would not “succumb to [his] sexual advances.”

Documents from the complaint obtained by BuzzFeed News include four signed affidavits, three of which are notarized, from former staff members who allege that Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sex acts, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public. Four people involved with the case verified the documents are authentic."

Ms Rye was very upset that while there have been calls for Mr. Conyers to resign from Democrats, there have been no such calls from most Democrats in the case of Mr. Franken.  She made it clear that she considers the allegations against the two to be one and the same.

Both men are accused of doing something that is wrong.  However, they are not on the same level.  Firing a woman who rebuffed your sexual advances when you were in a supervisor/subordinate relationship is a far worse allegation in my eyes.  Both men touched women who did not want to be touched, that much is true.  But the contexts are very, very different.

Buzzfeed also reports that another lawsuit was initially filed against Mr. Conyers but was later dismissed when the judge ruled it could not be filed under seal.  

* * *

That being said, the issue of just how Congress and other organizations should deal with allegations like those being leveled at Conyers, Franken and others; the Los Angeles Times took up the issue in an editorial in its Sunday edition.  

"Here’s one policy that should be obvious: Anyone under investigation for serious sexual misconduct involving staff ought to be off the job — suspended with pay, that is — until the case is resolved. The Legislature isn’t just a lawmaking body; it is the employer of hundreds of people who should be able to do their jobs without fear of sexual predators."

That is an excellent idea.  Allegations should be investigated.  Suspensions with pay preserves the presumption of innocence.  That's not to say a private employer cannot choose to act as The Weinstein Company did in choosing to fire Harvey Weinstein.  As long as they are in compliance with their own internal personnel policies, and adhering to the terms of any employment contracts that are in place, they have the right.

Dr. Oz was on a morning news show local to the L.A. area this morning.  He mentioned that a woman who is a rape survivor had talked to him, claiming that the lumping of harassment, unwanted touching and other offenses that do not rise to the level of rape; devalue her experience as a rape survivor.

Should someone's career end because they told an off-color joke?  Touched a colleague on the arm when the touch was not approved in advance?  I complimented a client the other day that she looked very nice.  She'd been in the office a number of times, and on this occasion was dressed much more formally than on her prior visits.  I actually checked to make sure I had not given offense and she said "there's no problem with a sincere compliment."

If we want women to feel safe, we need to establish and respect boundaries.  Unwanted touching of someone who is a stranger is never okay.  As we forge relationships with others, we erect those boundaries.  It is a process that we need to be more cognizant and conscious of.

Silence in not just assent, it is complicit consent - Capitol Hill edition

My undergraduate degree is in Business Administration with a major in Human Resource Management.  I took and passed the exam to receive the Professional in Human Resource (PHR) certification offered by the Society for Human Resource Management.  I mention these two items to illustrate that I have a strong understanding of the laws, policies and procedures for investigating allegations of sexual harassment.

My employer has an excellent written policy on harassment of all types in the workplace.  Typically, it encourages employees to report incidents as soon as possible, but it does not say that after a certain number of days have passed, a complaint can no longer be made.  Such things are typical of the policies and processes in place in private employment; although an argument can be made that some entertainment industry employers fail to enforce such policies, if they exist at all.

Congress has traditionally insulated or outright exempted itself from the rules it sets for employers.  What they've done for employees of Congress in terms of filing complaints of harassment goes beyond Byzantine.  Let's review.  Imagine that any employee of the Congress, at any level, believes they are a victim of sexual harassment.

He or she has only 180 days to file their complaint with the Office of Compliance.  After their complaint has been reviewed, they move to the next step.

Now he or she must undergo 30 days of mandatory counseling before anything else transpires.

Then they get 15 days to decide if they want to proceed to mediation or drop the complaint.

If they go to mediation, they must sign a confidentiality agreement and continue working with the person they are accusing.

If mediation fails, there is a mandatory 30 day cooling off period before they can file a lawsuit.

Should a settlement be reached, it is confidential.  The victim's lawyer and any settlement is paid with taxpayer funds.

* * *

Not only is this wrong, it is a system designed to protect the predator.  I suspect that this process, layered to make it all but impossible to receive a fair and impartial hearing for the complaint is the reason that members of the House and Senate feel free to do just about anything and believe they can get away with it.

Why else in the post-Anthony Weiner era would a member of the House, Joe Barton (R-TX), send a picture of his privates and a sext message to a woman?  He had to be operating under the assumption this couldn't possibly come back to haunt him.  But it has.

The Washington Post reports that Barton threatened to report the woman to the Capitol Police.  According to a tape the Post claims to have reviewed, Barton said:

“I want your word that this ends,” he said, according to the recording, adding: “I will be completely straight with you. I am ready if I have to, I don’t want to, but I should take all this crap to the Capitol Hill Police and have them launch an investigation. And if I do that, that hurts me potentially big time.”

Cheating while you are married is not equivalent to sexual harassment/assault/rape.  But threatening someone is out of bounds.

* * *

We have an election coming in less than a year where all 435 of the House and 1/3rd of the Senate will be up for grabs.  To ensure we do not return a bunch of p***y-grabbers to Capitol Hill, we need to make this an issue.  Candidates need to declare where they stand on the issue of making the process of reporting harassment allegations transparent and simple.  Not a rush to judgment mind you, but a fair, impartial investigatory process.

Thursday Thoughts

It is Thanksgiving.  I have a lot to be thankful for.  I'm alive.  Yeah, I'm in pain every day.  Yes, breathing is a struggle.  Right now I'm dealing with a higher level of fatigue because of my heart reverting to beating irregularly.  But I'm here.

* * *

Kellyanne Conway is here, in the White House, but once again showing that she isn't suited for it.

The problem with her little diatribe is that it may well have been a violation of The Hatch Act.  Here's the relevant section of Title 5, United States Code, Section 7323:

(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—

(1)

use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

The White House has attempted to defend her actions.  Raj Shah, a WH spokesperson said, "Ms. Conway did not advocate for or against the election of a candidate, and specifically declined to encourage Alabamans to vote a certain way. She was speaking about issues and her support for the President's agenda. This election is for the people of Alabama to decide."

Sorry Raj, but those words were definitely an attempt to influence the voters of Alabama.  Posing in front of the White House, it highlights her official position as an employee of the Trump Administration.  This is wrong.  

* * *

Juwan Harris is a clerk at a Circle K convenience store in Raleigh, NC.  Or she was.  She got fired for pursuing an armed robber and subduing him with a baseball bat.  The robber was arrested and faces common law theft charges.  She faces the unemployment line.

The store's policy is that employees are not supposed to pursue robbers.  Give them the money and the merchandise and let them go.

The comments section of the story about Ms Harris is filled with people saying she deserves a promotion, a raise and accolades for her actions.  People are entitled to that opinion.  They're also entitled to believe that the reason that policy exists is so that the store won't be sued by the thief for the beating he took.  I don't buy that for a second.

Money can be replaced.  Merchandise can be replaced.  Life cannot be replaced.  Let trained law enforcement personnel engage armed thieves.

* * *

Edith Macias is a student at the University of California, Riverside.  Back in September at a training session for student organizations on campus, she allegedly stole a MAGA hat from the head of another student.  A video of their confrontation went viral.

Now the Riverside County District Attorney's office is pursuing grand theft charges against her.  Apparently, taking something off of another person's body is considered misdemeanor grand theft.  

Reporter's note:  Interesting to note that Breitbart, Fox News and other conservative-leaning media outlets are playing up this story, while more liberal-leaning media outlets appear to be ignoring it.

* * *

Apparently, the Republican members of the Virginia state assembly would rather change a rule that is more than 100 years old rather than have to address Danica Roem, the state's first transgender legislator as a woman.

The rules call for legislators to be referred to as "the gentleman" or "the gentlewoman" and the plan is to replace the term with "delegate."

Reporter's note:  Why do they care so much?

* * *

The title of an article appearing on Yahoo Style was "People Were Distracted by Tiffany Trump's bare legs at White House turkey pardon.  Here's the photo:

Distracting?  What do you think?

* * *

Multiple media outlets are reporting that the North Korean Army Border Guards at the DMZ who failed to prevent the defection of the soldier who ran to the South through the DMZ have all been "replaced."

Were they all summarily executed?  Perhaps.  A lot of people seem to believe that's what happened. 

Given the instability of the leader of the DPRK, seems very possible.

* * *

And the hits just keep on coming

Those of us who tuned in weekly to hear the late Casey Kasem hosting America's Top 40 heard the title phrase often.  I don't know for certain, but I believe he took it from the title of an excellent album from Michael Nesmith.  He made the album in 1972 after leaving The Monkees.

I bring this up because of an op-ed from yesterday's L.A. Times that caught my eye.  Regarding the presumption of innocence, its author Brendan O'Neill writes, "The great liberal English barrister John Mortimer called this presumption the “golden thread” running through any progressive idea of justice. And it’s a thread that is being weakened in the febrile post-Weinstein climate."

The thing is, Mortimer was quoting someone else.  Lord Justice John Sankey was a barrister and judge in pre WWII England.  He said, "Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception."

The presumption of innocence is a right that we are all entitled to, in the criminal justice system.  Outside the criminal justice system, it is not a right codified in the law.  We should be considered innocent in the court of public opinion, in the eyes of others and so on, but that is not what is transpiring at this moment.

O'Neill writes about the fact that Jeremy Piven and George Takei's reputations are tarnished because of a single accusation against them.  He also rails that "It is now astonishingly easy to ruin a celebrity or near-celebrity. You can do it with a social media post. Spend five minutes writing a Facebook entry about how so-and-so in Hollywood once did something bad to you and — boom — that person is done for. You can dispatch him from polite society with a press of a button on your cellphone."

CBS is investigating the allegation against Piven, but his new TV show is continuing.  If George Takei's reputation is suffering, it may have something to do with the allegation against him when reviewed in light of comments he made on the Howard Stern show.  But like anything else, people get to make up their own minds about what they think.

I'm not saying that the people accusing Piven, Takei and others are being less than truthful.  I'm not passing any judgments regarding those allegations.   OTOH I think Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstein, James Toback. Brett Ratner and Kevin Spacey are almost certainly guilty of at least some of the allegations against them.  That's because it isn't just one or two people accusing them.

We also need to remember that this is being politicized.  And what's really interesting is that while there are some Republicans being critical of Roy Moore, and some Democrats calling for Al Franken to resign; accused politicians are being attacked and defended along party lines.  How else do we explain how an Alabama pastor by the name of Earl Wise is defending Roy Moore by saying "plus there are some 14 year olds, who the way they look, could pass for 20."

Uh, Pastor Wise, 20 year olds are carrying around their high school year books.

* * *

When a police officer is accused of wrongdoing, they are normally suspended with pay.  They must await the investigation's completion.  

Olivia Munn says she can't understand why anyone would want to work with Brett Ratner.  Choosing who you will and won't work with is a choice that people in her industry get to make.  Don't want to work with another producer/director/actor/writer/whatever, you don't do the deal.  That's fair.  Gal Gadot said she wouldn't make another Wonder Woman film if Brett Ratner had any involvement.  That's her right.

Jeffrey Tambor chose to leave "Transparent" where he'd won a Golden Globe and two Primetime Emmy awards for his work.  He's been accused of sexual harassment.  Does that constitute an admission of guilt?  No.  But some will see it that way.

How people choose to react to allegations is up to the individual.  But no one's life or career should be ruined by an anonymous allegation.

2017's Jerk of the Year Award Nominations

2017 has been a banner year for jerks.  I'll list a number of the top candidates for the 2017 Jerk of the Year Award, but I want to focus on two of the strongest candidates for a moment.  LaVar Ball and Donald J. Trump.

Since taking office this past January, Mr. Trump has done a lot of things to deserve consideration for this award, but his latest move epitomizes why he is a top candidate for this honor.  

In one of the few good things the LiarInChief has done since being sworn in, he went to bat for the three UCLA men's basketball players (including LaVar's son LiAngelo Ball) who had been arrested for shoplifting while the team was in China for a game.  His intervention was almost certainly instrumental in the players being allowed to return home.  

Naturally he used Twitter to pat himself on the back for what had happened.  "Do you think the three UCLA basketball players will say thank you President Trump?  They were headed for 10 years in jail."

The players indeed thanked him.  Then he sent out these tweets:

"To the three UCLA basketball players I say:  You're welcome, go out and give a big Thank You to President Xi Jinping of China who made..."

"...your release possible and have, A GREAT LIFE!  Be careful, there are many pitfalls on the long and winding road of life!"

When asked by ESPN about Trump's role in securing the release of his son and the other two players, LaVar Ball said, "Who?  What was he over there for? Don't tell me nothing. Everybody wants to make it seem like he helped me out."

Which caused Trump to retort on Twitter, "Now that the three basketball players are out of China and saved from years in jail, LaVar Ball, the father of LiAngelo, is unaccepting of what I did for his son and that shoplifting is no big deal. I should have left them in jail!"

No, you should not have left them in jail.  If the only reason you intervened was to be able to strut your stuff on the world stage and wait for what you feel is the fawning and gratitude you are entitled to, you've just proven once again you are wholly unfit for your office.  Those players were there as representatives of UCLA and the United States.  Getting them freed was the right move.  Getting into a pissing contest with LaVar Ball is not.

As for Mr. Ball, if it were up to me, I'd hang the nickname "7-11" on him, as Don Cheadle's character does to Chris Tucker's character in Rush Hour 2:

Well, his mouth is always open.  Not that much of any redeeming social value comes out of it.

* * *

Here are some other potential Jerk of the Year nominations for 2017:

The fact that she arranged for the Uber driver to get his tips back only slightly mitigates what she did.

Much better qualified as a candidate for Jerk of the Year than as a member of the U.S. Senate.

The "Pharma Bro" is a natural for this award

There are countless others worthy of being part of the selection process.  Please submit your nominations.

Stuff on a Saturday

Rasool Samir is a 19 year old man who was a member of the Garden City Community College men's basketball team.  On November 1st, the rest of his teammates went into the locker room prior to the playing of the national anthem.  Rasool did not join them as team rules call for, according to the college's attorney Randall Grisell.  During the playing of the anthem, he went onto the court and began shooting baskets  That led to a confrontation with a fan who was a long-time school booster.

The team's coach told him to return to the dorm and the college claims that Samir refused to do so.  Instead he followed the coach back onto the court and according to the New York Daily News, "Samir followed the team onto the floor and yelled at the coach, threatening to fight him, and responded with an obscenity when Trenkle told him to leave." 

Samir left the school after losing his athletic scholarship and returned to Philadelphia.  The ACLU claims his civil rights were violated.  Samir is a Muslim and as such does not stand for the playing of a nation's national anthem.  They may file a lawsuit.

Reporter's Note:  Whatever your faith, if the team rule is to go to the locker room, you go to the locker room.  He didn't need to stand for the anthem, but he needed to sit silently and allow others to observe the anthem.  Shooting baskets isn't a protest, it is an act of disruption.  There's a big difference between this and taking a knee, which I support and defend.

* * *

Should Senator Al Franken (D-MN) resign?  There's a lot of talk about that right now.  Donald Trump tweeted out about Senator Franken but has yet to address the allegations against defrocked Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore.  A lot of those who won't condemn Moore are calling for an ethic investigation into Senator Franken's actions from 2006.

Some argue recency as making what Senator Franken did worse than what Roy Moore did back in the late 1970s.  That's a ridiculous argument.

Leeann Tweeden is the victim here and she doesn't want Senator Franken to resign.

Reporter's Note:  That's good enough for me.  If the victim is okay with the apology, everyone else needs to back off.  Especially considering that Moore, Trump, Weinstein, et al; have yet to admit their culpability and/or apologize.

* * *

TMZ reports that David Cassidy is in critical condition in a Florida hospital and his organs are shutting down.  The story claims he will die if he doesn't get a liver transplant.

TMZ also reported back in February of this year that the singer/actor appeared drunk at a concert.  He admitted to alcoholism back in 2008, has had several DUI arrests in the past and been to rehab more than once.  In an interview with CNN back in March of 2014 he said, "if I take another drink, I'm going to die, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.  I'm dead."

Hospitals usually require a liver transplant candidate to be sober for at least six months prior to being given a donor organ.  A study published in 2011 suggests that liver transplant candidates suffering from alcoholism who aren't forced to wait for six months of sobriety prior to the transplant don't have a higher rate of returning to drinking than those who have to wait.  Since most patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis die within two months of diagnosis, this suggests the wait for sobriety may be contraindicated.

Reporter's Note:  This is a tough one.  I see two very strong arguments here.  One is that precious organs (more than 1,400 patients die annually waiting for a liver transplant) would be wasted if given to alcoholics who then return to drinking.  Professional soccer player George Best got a liver transplant in 2002, paid for the by the UK's National Health Service and died a little over two years later.  He went right back to drinking after the surgery.  Then there is David Crosby, who had his liver transplant in 1994 and is still around 23 years later.  I think hard and fast rules are bad and every situation should be evaluated individually.

* * *

Olivia Munn is one of the women who has accused Brett Ratner of sexual harassment/assault.  He of course has denied the allegations.  In a L.A. Times story published on Saturday, 11/18/2017, she made it clear what she wants.  "I want Warner Brothers to sever all ties with Brett Ratner."

The studio's production deal with Ratner's RatPac-Dune runs through the spring of next year, but the slate of films that are supposedly part of the 75 film financing deal between the studio and the company Ranter co-founded with billionaire James Packer.

Since the contract between the two is not a matter of public record, we don't know what the cost of Warner Brothers bailing on the deal before it expires would be.  Given that the deal calls for RatPac-Dune to provide $450 million in film financing without creative control, according to The Wrap.  That's a lot of money at risk.

Ending contractual business relationships is never easy.  It can often be very expensive.

Reporter's Note:  I don't blame Ms Munn one bit for wanting everyone in Hollywood to stop doing business with Ratner.  Especially given the anecdote she describes in the story when she met with Brian Grazer.  Morally, Warner Brothers should pull the plug right now.  Legally, they are part of Time-Warner, a publicly held company and they have a responsibility to their shareholders and the bottom line.  If there is a way to bail on the deal without it costing a lot of money, Warner should bail immediately.

* * *

According to CNN, seven Chicago Police Department officers are now on desk duty and fifteen men they allegedly framed have been released.

Over 47 years ago, the NY Times published a front page story in which widespread corruption in the New York City Police Department was detailed by a number of cops who spoke to the NYT because they felt the city wasn't investigating reports of corruption.  Frank Serpico was one of those cops.  Mayor Lindsay appointed five people to serve on the Knapp Commission to investigate.

In 1992 it was the Mollen Commission.  After 22 years had passed, this commission was appointed and they issued a report in 1994.  It found, "...the New York City Police Department had failed at every level to uproot corruption and had instead tolerated a culture that fostered misconduct and concealed lawlessness by police officers."

Now we find major corruption in the Chicago PD.  We have an ever-growing problem with people of color being killed by law enforcement personnel.  Who will stop such things?

Reporter's Note:  

Now more than ever it is critical to pose the question, Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?  Who watches the watchers.  During part of my career in the Air Force, I worked as a law enforcement specialist.  I know a lot of good people who work in the that field today.  I can't imagine any of them doing anything untoward.  I suspect that the vast majority of cops are honest, hard-working people who do not succumb to the temptations to engage in corruption.

To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it is long past time for outside agencies to be tasked, created if necessary, to investigate corruption and police shootings.

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent - The Rush to Judgment

This morning, on the morning talk radio program where she is the news anchor, Leeann Tweeden accused Senator Al Franken (D-MN) of sexual harassment back in 2006.  At the time, they were working on a USO tour that was visiting the Middle East.  She claims he forced his tongue into her mouth when they were rehearsing a kissing scene for a skit.  She also supplied a photograph from the flight home.

Is he actually touching her breasts?  Maybe, maybe not; but does that really matter?  Is it appropriate for a man to pose for a photo where is groping/simulating the groping of a woman's breasts?  Would it be worse if he had done this when he wasn't a comedian but a member of the U.S. Senate?

Senator Franken did not even get the chance to release a statement before the condemnation of his actions began on social media.  A few Tweets from before he released his first statement on the subject:

"That picture alone.  R.I.P. to Al Franken's whatever so called career and pretty much anything else he is associated with."

"No, this was not a skit.  She asleep when this happened.  Another incident happened during a skit.  I don't care who you are, what party you are a part of, this is wrong.  What Al Franken did here was wrong."

"Looks like @AlFranken needs to step aside in light of these new Allegations."

Then he released his first statement:

"I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann,” Mr. Franken, who has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, said in a statement. “As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it."

He did not deny the allegation.  He says that isn't how he remembers it.

Then he released a more complete statement:

"The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women.  There's more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it's the only thing you care to hear, that's fine—is: I'm sorry.

“I respect women.  I don't respect men who don't.  And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.

“But I want to say something else, too.  Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women.

“For instance, that picture.  I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn't matter. There's no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn't funny. It's completely inappropriate. It's obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what's more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.

“Coming from the world of comedy, I've told and written a lot of jokes that I once thought were funny but later came to realize were just plain offensive.  But the intentions behind my actions aren't the point at all.  It's the impact these jokes had on others that matters.  And I'm sorry it's taken me so long to come to terms with that.

“While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.

“I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.“

And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward to tell their stories. They deserve to be heard, and believed. And they deserve to know that I am their ally and supporter. I have let them down and am committed to making it up to them.”

* * *

A lot of people are drawing analogies.  One defense to the calls for Senator Franken to resign is that he should offer to resign simultaneously with Donald Trump.  Making the argument that what Trump has done is worse.  Defenders of Roy Moore are attempting to argue that what Senator Franken did was only 11 years ago as opposed to the nearly 40 year old allegations against the defrocked Alabama Chief Justice.  

The photo of Franken groping Leeann Tweeden looks really bad.  It is bad.  But is it as bad as what Roy Moore is accused of doing.  Oh hell no.

That's one of the major issues here with the conflation of the allegations of rape and other transgressions against Harvey Weinstein, what Louis CK admits to doing and what many others are accused of doing.  There are levels of transgression.

Rape is the worst.  Let's look at how California law views the various forms of rape:

Penal Code Section 261 defines rape. 

Penal Code Section 261.5 defines statutory rape.

Penal Code Section 262 defines spousal rape.

Penal Code Section 266(c) defines forced oral copulation.

Or to put it in simpler terms, there are degrees of rape.  Just like there's First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, Involuntary Manslaughter, Voluntary Manslaughter and so on.

Is it right to conflate what Al Franken is doing in that photograph with the allegations of rape/forced oral copulation being made against Weinstein, et al?  I don't think so.  It was wrong, both the attempt to force his tongue into Tweeden's mouth and the photograph.  He needs to be held responsible.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that he apologized immediately.  Roy Moore continues to deny the allegations against him.  Harvey Weinstein insists that all incidents of what he labels as sex were consensual.  And of course, the Liar-in-Chief has his mouthpiece claiming that all of the women who accused him are lying.

Apologies and ownership of what happened mitigate, but do not excuse or forgive what happened.  

BTW, Senator Franken is calling for his actions to be investigated.  Roy Moore is having the backgrounds of his alleged victims investigated in order to cast doubt on their allegations.  See any difference between their behavior AFTER being accused?  I sure hope so.

* * *

In any allegation, we need to hear both sides of the story; before we rush to judgment.  We can condemn someone's behavior thoroughly after we learn that the condemnation is warranted.

Attitudes Are Part of the Problem

I learned a lot of acronyms during my military service.

AWOL – Absent With Out Leave

CBPO – Centralized Base Personnel Office

NCO – Non-Commissioned Officer

Then when I went to Guam for 15 months, I was exposed to one I’d only read about in a book.

PCOD – Pussy Cut-Off Date

I first heard it used by two grizzled veterans nearing retirement.  Both were married.  We were sitting in the bar at the “Top 5” NCO club, a cut above the larger club that was more of an all-ranks club.  They were talking about how one of them was coming close to the end of his 15-month tour and had better figure out his PCOD.  I’d read the phrase in a book about the Vietnam War, but didn’t think it was still in use.  Apparently, I’d been mistaken. 

Let’s be clear.  I’m not conflating infidelity with sexual harassment/assault/rape.  But I think that the attitude toward infidelity is a building block toward the attitudes of the “good old days” many cite in acting as apologists for Harvey Weinstein and other sexual predators.

Statisticbrain.com cites some interesting data from the Associated Press and the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy from September of 2016.  74% of men say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught.  Women were at 68% on that one.  In 41% of marriages, one or both spouses admit to infidelity, either emotional or physical.

I’m going to stop recording the Jerry Springer Show as soon as I get home, because I no longer want to be entertained by stories of marital infidelity for amusement.  I won’t stop watching movies or TV dramas that explore the issue, but I’m no longer going to laugh at it. 

Part of the problem is too many males are raised in a way that gives them an improper world view of how to treat women.  Consider a group of men sitting in a bar after work throwing back a few beers.  Talk turns to the story of how a young teen student at the local high school has been caught having sex with one of her male teachers.  I would expect them to talk about child-molestation, rape, sexual predators and meting out vigilante justice.

But flip the script by reversing the genders of the teacher and student and you’d see a much different response.  “Lucky boy, to have an older woman show him the ropes.”  They’ll wink, nod and leer at one another, congratulating the boy who has been the victim of what our system of justice views as statutory rape.  Why is it that he’s a hero and his fellow student is a victim?  Because of the myth of male dominance and power.

Do you blame Terry Crews for not stepping forward immediately and calling out the man who he claims groped him at a party?  I don’t.  As men we’re expected to defend ourselves.  Protect those we love.  As far as we have tried to stride toward equality, some of those myths die hard.

***

No means no.  But it shouldn’t have to be stated.  Telling off-color jokes in the workplace is a bad idea.  Touching another person when that touching was not invited is wrong.  Period.

Using the power of your position in life makes any such transgression worse by orders of magnitude.  How a woman chooses to dress has nothing to do with making her a target for unwanted attention.  Look with your eyes, men, not with your hands.  The fact you find a woman sexually attractive can be kept in your mind.  You are under no obligation to verbalize it, to her or anyone else.  Write about it in your journal.  If you must, once you are no longer in the workplace, self-gratify if you wish.  But no one wants to see that.  No one should be forced to see that.

Abnormal sexual behaviors are labeled as various forms of paraphilia.  The paraphilia for a man who masturbates in front of others is exhibitionism.  Christian Joyal is a neuropsychologist at the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivieres who studies paraphilia.  “This type of sex offenders have what we call narcissistic traits; usually not a disorder, but strong personality traits, enough to make them believe that they are untouchable.”

There may be a component of a solution in what Joyal says.  If enough of us step up and say that no one is untouchable, that no one can do these things and go unpunished, and if we can take actions to make sure that happens; perhaps we are one step closer to preventing this in the future.  This is only one component of the complete solution and only a suggestion, but it makes sense to me.  Gal Gadot has found another piece of the puzzle, saying she will not do work that will enrich an accused sexual predator.  Imagine if every A-lister refused to work with people like Harvey Weinstein, Brett Ratner and so on.

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent - Part 8

There is a common theme among those who are talking about the allegations made against Roy Moore, the defrocked Alabama judge who is the Republican nominee in a U.S. Senate race scheduled to take place on December 12, 2017.

U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) called on Moore to step aside but made mention of the age of the allegations against him.  "You know, this is a terrible situation, nearly 40 year old allegations, we'll probably never know for sure exactly what happened." 

Fox News' Judge Jeanine Pirro said, "Right now it is 40 years later (Reporter's note - 38 years, just to be pedantic).  I doubt there could be a charge filed here."

Alabama State House of Representatives Member Ed Henry (R) said, "If they believe this man is predatory, they are guilty of allowing him to exist for 40 years.  I think someone should prosecute and go after them.  You can't be a victim 40 years later, in my opinion."

* * *

Let's flash back to last month.  On the 10/17/2017 episode of her Fox News program, Jeanine Pirro's opening statement contained the following text, "And no surprise though, your morals are nowhere in line with ours.  You openly rise to applaud a child rapist, Roman Polanski."

You can watch the video yourself if you wish.  I only got as far as the above quote.

Funny, there are some similarities and some vast differences between what Roman Polanski did and what Roy Moore did.  Both men were adults.  Both of their victims were young teens (Polanski's victim was 13, Moore's alleged victim was 14).  Polanski plied his victim with alcohol and drugs.  Moore is not accused of doing that to Ms Corfman, but he did allegedly give wine to an older teen who was still not of age to drink legally in Alabama.

But the fact that these allegations date back to the 1970s means NOTHING about their relevance.  A victim is a victim, no matter how long they wait to come forward.  There may be a statute of limitations preventing their assailant from facing justice in the legal system, or in civil court, but there is no statute of limitations on morality.  A crime is a crime when it was committed and it remains one.  The passage of time does not lessen the significance of the offense.

The hypocrisy is on both sides of the political aisle.  Progressives excuse/defend/act as apologists for other progressives.  Conservatives do the same.  The one thing we ought to be able to remove partisanship from is that no one should be victimized by a sexual predator, at any age.  It is merely even more severe a transgression when a child is the victim.  

I don't know if Pastor Tom Brown has any children.  I know that both Judge Jeanine Pirro and Representative Ed Henry have daughters.  Would they allow an adult male to do what Roy Moore allegedly did to then-14 year old Leigh Corfman?  Would they let an adult male remove their daughters' shirt and pants, and then take off his own clothes?  Would they be so sanctimonious about that man running his hands over their daughters' bra and underpants?  Would they have no problem with his guiding their daughters' hand to touch his genitals through his underwear?

I guess they would have no problem with it, provided it happened nearly 40 years ago.  How sad for their daughters.  How sad that a 14 year old Leigh Corfman's decision to remain silent rather than face the dangers of accusing a powerful assistant district attorney of misconduct in 1979; makes her less worth of their "Christian compassion."

Tired of being tired and other stuff

I thought that having the months of May and June off from work would allow me to fully recover from the rigors of the tax season.  But when the fatigue did not subside, I began to worry.  I worried more when I returned to work in July and it got worse.

Last month I saw my primary care doctor and asked him if my heart had gone back into atrial fibrillation.  He didn't think so but couldn't be sure.  Last week I saw the cardiologist and he confirmed that I have gone back into "a-fib."  It explains the fatigue.

I've wanted to do so many things that I have not been able to do over the past few months.  I miss going to trivia with my friends.  I have missed out on many movies.  For the most part, all I've done the last four months is work, eat, sit in the chair in my room watching TV and using my computer; and sleep.  I've slept a lot more trying to battle the exhaustion that washes over me with frightening regularity.

Yesterday I taught a morning class.  My plan was to see two movies afterward, then hit the grocery store and run a few other errands.  I managed to get through the grocery run and that was all I could handle.  I came home and wound up taking a nap.

This past Tuesday I managed to get myself out through the front door to see two movies.  It was a major event and made me very happy.  I'm hoping to get to the movies today.  Time will tell if I can make it happen.

What I find interesting is that as bad as this fatigue has been, it has not impacted my working.  I get myself to the office, to the classroom and wherever else my work takes me.  I did get someone to cover one of my classes because I was just too tired to spend nearly two hours in rush hour traffic to teach.

Guess I need to find a way to force myself to do the things I enjoy with the same fervor I force myself to get the job done.  Didn't get to that point today.  But there is always tomorrow.

* * *

After hearing about Vin Scully's statement that he will never watch another NFL game, I was saddened.  Not because one of my idols has been tarnished in the eyes of so many.  I'm saddened because it appears that the spin that the #TakeAKnee movement is disrespecting the military and those who have served is working so well.

That is not what this is about. It is about the fact that people of color are being killed by law enforcement personnel at an ever growing, disproportionate rate.

It is about the fact that we live in a nation where there is a large segment of the population who buy into the thought process expressed in this meme.

It is Veterans Day.  I am a veteran.  I have no problem with people who choose to #TakeAKnee.  I support their right to do so.  I also support Vin's right to say what he said and do what he chooses.  But I do not agree with it.

* * *

Three players on the UCLA men's basketball team were arrested for allegedly shoplifting sunglasses from a Louis Vuitton store.  ESPN's Arash Markazi (who I follow on Twitter because he is an outstanding sports journalist) is reporting that there is surveillance footage of the trio shoplifting from three stores.

LiAngelo Ball, brother of the L.A. Lakers top draft pick Lonzo Ball is one of the three.  His father, LaVar Ball said he wouldn't speak out about his son's arrest but he just couldn't resist doing just that.  He said, "I’m going to wait until I get more intel on what’s going on.  He’ll be fine. Everyone’s making it a big deal. It ain’t that big a deal.” 

Sorry LaVar but shoplifting is a big deal.  Maybe the big money your sons are bringing in with NBA contracts, endorsement deals and a reality TV show have put you among those who can afford what some refer to as "rich man's justice" but that doesn't mean shoplifting isn't a big deal.

According to CNBC, in 2013 the worldwide cost of shoplifting was over $112 billion.  Money Magazine reports that in 2016, U.S. retailers lost $17.8 billion to shoplifting and another $14.8 billion to employee theft.  If we spread the cost of those two items among all Americans, we're each paying more than $100 out of own pockets to cover the cost to retailers.

Cheyenne Amber West is a 26 year old resident of Fort Pierce, FL.  She was arrested for allegedly paying $3.70 for over $1,800 worth of electronics.  She is accused of switching the price scan codes.  The source of the problem we face from those who steal is found in her statement regarding the alleged crime to a deputy.  "I am just trying to get gifts for my son that I cannot afford. The computer is for my husband. Since he just got me a Coach purse, I figured he deserved something nice, as well."

So since she couldn't afford it, she figured it was okay to just steal it.  I do not condone, but understand the motive for people who steal food in order to feed themselves and their families.  But this, I do not understand at all.  I just know it is a really big deal.

* * *

NBC is going to ship Megyn Kelly to South Korea for the Winter Olympic Games.  Guess Matt and Savannah didn't want to make the trip.

Will someone please tell Alabama's State Auditor, Jim Ziegler that there is no evidence that Joseph had sex with Mary in scripture and that using that to defend defrocked Judge Roy Moore is a really stupid argument?  Oh wait, I did, on Twitter.  Naturally he didn't answer.

The guy who used a drone to catch his wife kissing another man is now claiming that it has saved his marriage.  So because he caught her before the flirtation developed, the relationship has been rescued?  Not sure I buy that.

The lawyer for Gloria Deason, one of the women accusing Roy Moore of sexual impropriety long ago, has released a statement in response to Moore's claims these women are liars engaged in bribery and conspiracy.

Let's see if he retracts.  Bet he won't.

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent - Part 7

A lot of people were surprised today when Louis CK admitted that the accusations against him published by the New York Times were all true.  You can read the complete text of his statement in another New York Times piece.  Here is an excerpt:

"These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was O.K. because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly. I have been remorseful of my actions. And I’ve tried to learn from them. And run from them. Now I’m aware of the extent of the impact of my actions."

To use an old @midnight metaphor, a lot of people are giving him "points" for having owned up to what he did.  Sorry Louie, but you get no points from me.  Had the NYT not published this piece, you would almost certainly have continued to ignore these allegations that have been discussed since you treated women this way.  You may now be "aware" of your abuse of your "power" in these situations, but you did nothing until your hand was forced.  An apology is certainly better than the denials being offered by others accused of far worse, but it is not "good enough."  Not nearly good enough.

His management company, 3 Arts and his publicist have dropped him.  Will 3 Arts investigate what his manager, Dave Becky actually did in what Louis CK described as "mediating?"

His new film's release has been scrapped.  FX, HBO and Netflix have all cut ties with him.  His website lists no upcoming tour dates.  His career is in freefall, and yet some commentators in the entertainment industry are saying his career can be salvaged, thanks to this apology.  Would you pay money to see anything involving Louis CK in the future?  I will not.

* * *

Ellen Page posted something on Facebook describing what she alleges Brett Ratner did to her on the set of X-Men: The Last Stand.  Here is an excerpt:

“You should fuck her to make her realize she’s gay.” He said this about me during a cast and crew “meet and greet” before we began filming, X Men: The Last Stand. I was eighteen years old. He looked at a woman standing next to me, ten years my senior, pointed to me and said: “You should fuck her to make her realize she’s gay.” He was the film’s director, Brett Ratner.
I was a young adult who had not yet come out to myself. I knew I was gay, but did not know, so to speak. I felt violated when this happened. I looked down at my feet, didn’t say a word and watched as no one else did either. This man, who had cast me in the film, started our months of filming at a work event with this horrific, unchallenged plea. He “outed” me with no regard for my well-being, an act we all recognize as homophobic. I proceeded to watch him on set say degrading things to women. I remember a woman walking by the monitor as he made a comment about her “flappy pussy”.

Disgusting.  Horrific.  Unacceptable.  But not criminal.

As we continue to be overwhelmed with new accusations coming faster and faster, it is important to remember a few things.  Rape and sexual assault are not the same as sexual harassment.  Unwanted touching is not the same as telling an inappropriate joke.  They are all wrong.  But there are degrees of wrong and we cannot conflate every single accusation with the rape charges being leveled by Paz de La Huerta and others against Harvey Weinstein.  He retains the presumption of innocence in the criminal and civil court systems, although I believe him to have done what he is accused of doing.

We should not give a pass to anyone for any improper action of harassment.  But we shouldn't conflate them with rape either.

* * *

Today we've seen George Takei accused of groping a male model back in 1981.  TVLine.com is reporting that Andrew Kreisberg has been suspended from his duties as showrunner for the CW/Warner Brothers TV show The Flash (and others he is a producer on) because of numerous allegations of "... sexual harassment and inappropriate physical contact."  In the wake of Henry Dreyfuss, son of Oscar-winning actor Richard Dreyfuss having accused Kevin Spacey, now Richard Dreyfuss stands accused of exposing himself to a woman in his trailer during production of a TV comedy special.  He denies the allegation.

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent.- Part 6

I'm beginning to think the major broadcast network nightly news programs are going to have to be extended by five minutes.  Five extra minutes of broadcast time to allow for the daily review of the latest allegations of sexual assault among notable folks.  Today found stories breaking about a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in Alabama, Roy Moore.  Writer/actor/comedian Louis C.K. was the subject of a story in the New York Times where five women accused him of masturbating in front of them.  A former news anchor accused Kevin Spacey of getting her then 18 year old son drunk and putting his hand down the son's pants and groping him.  On Wednesday, Portia de Rossi added her name to those of Lisa Guerrero, Jenny McCarthy and Juliana Marguiles; all of whom accuse Steven Seagal of sexual impropriety

How many of the alleged victims of these people would have remained silent if the Harvey Weinstein scandal had not broken wide open?  We have no way of knowing.  But I suspect that a lot of them might have continue to remain silent.  Here is an excerpt from the New York Times story:

"In 2002, a Chicago comedy duo, Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov, landed their big break: a chance to perform at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, Colo. When Louis C.K. invited them to hang out in his hotel room for a nightcap after their late-night show, they did not think twice. The bars were closed and they wanted to celebrate. He was a comedian they admired. The women would be together. His intentions seemed collegial.

As soon as they sat down in his room, still wrapped in their winter jackets and hats, Louis C.K. asked if he could take out his penis, the women said."

In 2012, Gawker published a story asking "Which Beloved Comedian Likes to Force Female Comics to Watch Him Jerk Off?"  Here's an excerpt:

We've heard from several sources that this shameless funnyman whips it out at the most inopportune moments, often at times when his female companions have expressed no interest in watching him go at it. A representative example: At the Aspen Comedy Festival a few years ago, he invited a female comedy duo back to his hotel room. The two ladies gladly joined him, and offered him some weed. He turned it down, but asked if it would be OK if he took his dick out.
Thinking he was joking (that's exactly the kind of thing this guy would say), the women gave a facetious thumbs up. He wasn't joking. When he actually started jerking off in front of them, the ladies decided that wasn't their bag and made for the exit. But the comedian stood in front of the door, blocking their way with his body, until he was done.
One of the ladies was so shaken by the episode that she complained to the festival's organizers about the comedian's behavior. She promptly received a call from his extremely powerful manager explaining that, if she valued her career, she would drop it. She valued her career.

Gawker was looking into this a decade later and the apparent victim was still refusing to discuss the matter, probably due to the intimidation of the manager.  The manager, one Dave Becky strenuously denies having threatened anyone.  No surprise there.  Unless and until the alleged victim offers proof of any threat, there's no way to prove anything.

Therein lies the rub.  People like the aforementioned alleged sexual predators are protected by those around them, because they bring in the bucks.  The big bucks.  So rather than allow the goose that lays golden eggs for all be slaughtered, they protect the predator.  It may make sense from a strict focus on the bottom line of the business, but it illustrates the complete moral bankruptcy of the people who protect these people.

This manager also represents Amy Poehler, Kevin Hart, Hanibal Burress and Aziz Ansari.  How will they react to this?  That remains to be seen.  Are allegations enough to end a long-term business relationship?

Netflix did.  They have severed all ties with Kevin Spacey.  Ridley Scott is replacing Spacey in the movie All The Money in the World, which is scheduled for a December release.  He has brought in Christopher Plummer and will re-shoot all of Spacey's scenes.  Expensive.  But probably less expensive than trying to release the film with Spacey still in it.  Imagine the picket lines outside any theater showing the film if Spacey wasn't excised from it.

Meanwhile, Terry Crews has filed a police report accusing Adam Venit of being the man who allegedly groped the actor at a party.  He's also fired WME as his agent, which is the agency where Venit worked.  Venit was not part of the team who represented the actor, but he has been suspended since he was identified as the "assailant" of Crews.  Meanwhile, 3 Arts continues to be the manager of Terry Crews.  The same 3 Arts Entertainment company where Dave Becky works.

* * *

A large number of men are holding on to the "this is always how its been" rationalization for staying silent, excusing the behavior of these predators and so on.  Some of them are saying that the allegations of sexual assault that date back decades shouldn't carry the same weight as those that are more recent because "...those were different times."  It may have been ignored but that doesn't mean it was any more acceptable then than it is now.

We all need to make it clear.  Every single allegation made against these men, represents unacceptable actions.  Actions we must stand up and shout about.  Yes, some of this stuff is he said/she said or he said/he said and no one has been convicted of anything...yet.  But we need to make it clear to people like Dave Becky and others who have been so focused on protecting their "interests" that their actions are just as unacceptable.

Kudos to Charlie Day and Chloe Grace Moretz for pulling out of promotion of the movie I Love You Daddy, which Louis CK directed.  HBO is removing Louis CK programs from its on demand offerings.  FX is "reviewing its relationship" with the comedian.  Hopefully the other actors involved in I Love You Daddy will also step away from promoting the film.

The people who protect these predators may be morally bankrupt, but there is another approach we can take to get them to do the right thing.  If we can unite behind refusing to put money in their hands from the works of these animals into the hands of their protectors, we don't need them to acquire morality.  They will recognize that the bottom line suffers from their protective actions, and will stop shielding such people.

Was the sentence handed to Bowe Bergdahl disgraceful as Donald Trump claims?

Colonel Jeffrey Nance is the military judge presiding over the court-martial of Bowe Bergdahl.  On November 3, 2017, he sentenced Bergdahl to be reduced in rank from SGT to PVT, to forfeit $10,000 in military pay and to be dishonorably discharged from the Army.  General Robert B. Abrahms, the commander of the Army's Forces Command will review the sentence.  He can reduce any portion of the sentence, but he cannot impose more severe punishments.  If his name is familiar that may be because his father was General Creighton Abrams, who succeeded General William Westmoreland as the Commander of the Military Assistance Command in Vietnam.

Not long after the sentence was announced, Donald Trump took to Twitter, saying:

"The decision on Sergeant Bergdahl is a complete and total disgrace to our Country and to our Military."

If the Liar-in-Chief wants to place the blame on Bergdahl escaping prison time, he needs to look at his own orange visage in the mirror.  Colonel Nance made it clear that he would consider Trump's earlier comments about Bowe Bergdahl in mitigation when imposing sentence.  Those earlier comments came during the presidential campaign.  At a rally in Alabama during his campaign, candidate Trump said:

"Has anybody heard of Sergeant Bergdahl? The traitor, no, no, the traitor. I call President Obama the five-for-one president. We get Sergeant Bergdahl, a traitor who, by the way, six people, at least, that we know of, six people were killed trying to get this guy back. Six people, they went after him. They wanted to get him back. So we get Sergeant Bergdahl and they get five people --"

This statement would be extremely prejudicial if made by a sitting president.  As a candidate, Trump can and did say a lot of things, but were he to be elected, these comments presented a potential problem.  In fact, after his inauguration, Bergdahl's defense team filed a motion to dismiss the charges against their client, arguing that these commands were an example of unlawful command influence.  Colonel Nance denied that motion.

Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it clear that commanders cannot attempt or even appear to attempt to influence a court-martial.

"(a) No authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, nor any other commanding officer, may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercise of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceeding. No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts. The foregoing provisions of the subsection shall not apply with respect to:

(1) general instructional or informational courses in military justice if such courses are designed solely for the purpose of instructing members of a command in the substantive and procedural aspects of courts-martial, or
(2) to statements and instructions given in open court by the military judge, president of a special court-martial, or counsel."

When President Obama made some comments regarding sexual assault in the military it did not appear that his intent was to exercise this type of unlawful command influence.  But that's how military judges ruled.  In 2013 a military judge ruled that in two cases involving sexual assaults by military personnel, President Obama's comments constituted undue command influence and therefore the two men accused could not be punitively discharged from the military.

So when Trump was sworn in, he should have just shut his mouth about the Bergdahl case.  Instead he tried to dance around the issue of command influence by saying, "I think people have heard my comments in the past."

Colonel Nance's response was firm.  "I will consider the president's comments as mitigation evidence as I arrive at an appropriate sentence."

The Liar-in-Chief has no one to blame but himself for Bergdahl avoiding prison.

* * *

Personally, I think some prison time was warranted in the Bergdahl case.  Not the 14 years that the prosecution was seeking, but five years or so would have been warranted.   The judge probably took into account the fact that this man spent five years in captivity during which he claimed he was tortured.

As to Trump's comments on what Bergdahl did and didn't do, does someone who has no morals regarding the behavior of himself and his minions, who took the coward's way out by claiming to have bone spurs in his heels and who claims that his limited years in a military high school made him more qualified militarily than those of us who have served; deserve to pass judgment?  I think not.

The problem of unlawful command influence cannot be overstated.  On every military base where I was stationed, there was a unit known as the Area Defense Counsel.  This was a team of military attorneys who were not part of the base's chain of command.  

Court-martials are prosecuted by military lawyers who ARE in the chain of command of the convening authority of the court-martial.  They represent the command structure.  If that same convening authority were to be able to exercise influence over the military lawyers who are defending the accused, then that attorney might not be able to give their client the zealous representation they deserve.

I read a terrific novel by Harold Coyle, a former Army officer.  It is titled Code of Honor and it gives an excellent portrayal of how unlawful command influence can work.  An incompetent general is exposed as such and he demands the head of the officer who exposed him.

We have the same system in the civilian courts.  The office of the Public Defender does not work for the District Attorney to provide the accused with attorneys who will not be influenced by people higher up on their organizational chart who have an agenda to convict a suspect.

* * *

The "comment commandos" are out in force on both sides of this issue.  Some are calling Colonel Nance a traitor for not sending Bergdahl to prison.  Some say he's suffered enough.

Some are repeating the now debunked claim that men died searching for Bergdahl after he deserted his post.  You can read the evidence of this false claim being disproven here. 

Yes, all soldiers had been told to be on the lookout for then PFC Bergdahl.  But that doesn't make every single military operation in the area a search for the man.  There were specific missions that were not related to the search for the missing Bergdahl on which these six men were tragically killed.  What frightens me is that in spite of conclusive evidence (the Army's own investigations into their deaths), the lie that they died as part of a search for Bergdahl continues.

One comment that caught me eye called on the Army to revoke the award of the Combat Infantry Badge to now PVT Bergdahl.  The Army regulations on the subject do allow for the revocation of awards and badges in the wake of a dishonorable discharge.  Seems appropriate.

Donald Trump is a Liar - Tax Reform Edition

Donald Trump is living up to the nickname Liar-in-Chief when he or any of the Republicans doing his bidding in the Congress talk about this new tax reform bill as being a reduction in taxes for the middle class.

The Tax Policy Center issued a report on the proposal on October 27th.  It pointed out that the taxpayers in the bottom 95% of income distribution would see tax reductions of roughly 1.2% while taxpayers in the top 1% (earning more than $730,000) would see a cut in their tax bill of 8.5%.

We can make this simpler first and then examine it in more detail.  First and foremost tax break being given to the wealthy is the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).  While the Liar-in-Chief doesn't feel transparency applies to his personal income tax returns, we did get to see two pages of his 2005 return.

His adjusted gross income that year was $48.5 million but he claimed itemized deductions (we don't have the details to see what deductions he took) of $17 million to make his taxable income $31.5 million on which he would have paid income tax of $5.3 million.

But because of the AMT, most of those deductions were added back into his income and then the tax recalculated which resulted in a total tax bill of $36.5 million.  Now I know what you're thinking.  That's a tax rate of 75%, which is outrageous.  Then again, the rate on his taxable income under the regular tax system was 16.8%.  Too low in the minds of some.

You see, before the Net Operating Loss (NOL) deduction on page 1 of that 2005 tax return, Trump's income was actually $151.7 million.  So his AMT tax bill was the prescribed 24%.

Under the new system, on that income of $151.7 million, Donald Trump would pay an estimated $19.2 million in income tax.  That's 12.6%.

Fair?  Hardly.  These tax cuts will primarily benefit the rich and the Liar-in-Chief is at the front of the line in front of the trough where these rich pigs slop up the tax breaks.

* * *

Now let's examine some of the proposals in this bill that would impact the majority of Americans and how fans of the WWE might choose to relabel this proposal the Washington, D.C. Screw Job.

Meet two families.  Mr. and Mrs. Smith live next door to Ms Edwards.  Both Mr. Smith and Ms Edwards are mid-level managers for a major retail firm and earn $70,000 per year.  The Smiths have two kids while Ms Edwards is a single parent with three children.

Under the current tax system, Mr. and Mrs. Smith get to avoid tax on the amount of their standard deduction of $12,600 plus four personal exemptions at $4,050 for a total of $16,200.  $70,000 of income less $12,600 less $16,200 = taxable income of $41,200.  Their federal tax bill would be $5,269.  They would get child tax credits totaling $2,000 for a total tax liability of $3,269.

Under the Trump plan, they would get the enhanced standard deduction of $24,000 but no personal exemptions.  So their taxable income would be $46,000.  The tax on that amount would be $5,520.  They would get child tax credits totaling $3,000 and their tax liability would total $2,520.  Not bad.

Now let's examine the bill for Ms Edwards.

Under the current tax system, Ms Edwards gets a standard deduction of $9,300 and four exemptions totally $16,200.  So she is taxed on income of $44,500.  Her tax liability under the old system is $6,016 and she gets child tax credits of $3,000 for a total tax liability of $3,016.

Under the Trump plan, she gets a standard deduction of $12,00 and no exemptions.  Her taxable income would therefore be $58,000.  The tax bill on that level of income for Ms Edwards would be $8,650.  She would get $4,500 in child tax credits and a total tax liability of $4,150.  So under the Trump play, her tax liability is over $1,000 higher.

Sucks to be her.

* * *

A look at the rest of the details of this tax "reform" plan.

Corporate tax rates are cut from 35% to 20%.  Permanently.

The Estate Tax exemption will double and eventually be eliminated.

What are known as pass-through entities will be taxed at a top rate of 25%.  For a number of partnerships and S-corporations, this is a major tax break.

The deduction of interest paid on student loans is eliminated.  That hurts single people paying those loans off whose income is below $80,000 and couples whose income is below $160,000.

While the recipients of alimony will continue to be taxed on that as ordinary income, those who are paying it will no longer be able to deduct it from their income.  In essence, a tax increase on those who pay alimony.

It repeals the Johnson Amendment which currently prevents tax-exempt non-profits from making political endorsements.  In essence, giving the religious right the ability to endorse from the pulpit.

These things do not benefit the middle class.  They benefit the wealthy and Trump's base.